INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • Send9

    How is it possible that DFS sites are increasing rake instead of decreasing it? They have all shown that they’re profitable, why be so greedy and try to take more. This isn’t helping grow the industry. Pokerstars recently tried to increase rake but poker players pushed back and Pokerstars ended up leaving it alone. We need to do the same.

  • SteveAvery

    @Mindgame247 said...

    Maybe a sit-out would work but I think all it would do is open our eyes to just how small the grinder population really is in comparison to the recreational player population.

    In terms of our number of entries, I think we are significant.

  • dan72

    A few of my thoughts.

    1) The sites spend so much $ early on because they are starting from scratch that their cost of customer, software, programming, etc. costs are so high they have to charge at least 10% rake to not burn through all of their money quickly. So I think the game changer is if/when ESPN, CBS, YAHOO come into DFS. They won’t be starting from scratch. They have a customer base already. They probably got programmers in India which cost a fraction as much as they do here. They can easily afford to offer less rake. Not talking a huge decrease in rake but something like 8% is a big deal.

    2) I have said it numerous times on this message board and its been mentioned a few times in this thread. The money to be made in DFS isn’t from playing but its from giving advice. Whether you charge a fee for the service or get a referral fee from the sites. Thats the best and only assured way to make a living/side money in DFS.

  • SteveAvery

    I feel obligated to say this because I’m often quoting AlSmizz posts and taking opposite sides: I also think he’s a really good guy who has done and does a ton for this community.

  • yaleg34

    @SteveAvery said...

    I feel obligated to say this because I’m often quoting AlSmizz posts and taking opposite sides: I also think he’s a really good guy who has done and does a ton for this community.

    Completely agree with your sentiment

  • einars

    @yaleg34 said...

    they are presently positioned it doesnt matter nearly as much to them as it does to the majority of this community

    because of their position they are more vested than other for continued success of both the sites AND the players (esp the players). just because they positioned themselves well in the industry doesnt mean they have ulterior motives

  • einars

    @dan72 said...

    They can easily afford to offer less rake. Not talking a huge decrease in rake but something like 8% is a big deal.

    and then once they have the customer base the jack the rate up as high as demand will sustain. you are not operating an efficient business until your cost to consumer is as high as the customer will sustain. only reason to offer below market cost is to obtain a customer base

  • yaleg34

    @einars said...

    because of their position they are more vested than other for continued success. just because they positioned themselves well in the industry doesnt mean they have ulterior motives

    Run me through the math/profitability where a vastly growing but unbeatable game for a grinder is bad for smizz or cal or any other affiliate/tout/sponsored pro/marketer or product offeing DFS related?

    Cause i dont see your point at all

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @yaleg34 said...

    Posts by steveavery and lovesbases are the ones to focus in on that are logical and relevant to the real issues at hand.

    Cal and al smizzle have way too many alterior motives that effect the food which is put on the table for their familys to be objective. Cal and smizzle are net winners when the industry gets bigger regardless of profitability for the player, this is why they are engaged on the side of business which they presently have positioned themselves (cal=massive affiliate) and smizzle=sponsored pro, lololol and radio personality/industry ambassador and all around good guy. Even though i lol at sponsored pro i honestly believe smizzle is a good guy and great ambassador for the industry, he is nice, respectufl, and thoughtful without being antagonistic (cant say the same for myself).

    Basically the alterior motives of these 2 and a select few others greatly differ from the rest of the community seeking to play a game that can remain profitable after fees. Sure, they dont mind a profitable low rake game, but where they are presently positioned it doesnt matter nearly as much to them as it does to the majority of this community

    It drives me nuts when people do what you’re doing here.

    (He’s a great wonderful guy, but now I’m going say something rotten about him now.)

    (Don’t take this the wrong way, but…..)

    (Nothing personal, but…..)

    If you’re gonna say something about someone’s integrity just say it.

  • Taylor

    @Mindgame247 said...

    Just to play devil’s advocate, what is the great injustice with increased rake? Is there any answer to that question that doesn’t boil down to someone’s own self-interest?

    Obviously I want rake to be as low as possible for my own selfish reasons but the sites don’t owe it to us. Their goal is to make as much money as they can and if people are still willing to play then it seems kinda silly for them not to increase rake. Maybe a sit-out would work but I think all it would do is open our eyes to just how small the grinder population really is in comparison to the recreational player population.

    Fortunately, as the DFS industry continues to evolve I think rake will find a middle ground that’s a profitable proposition for both players and for the site but I don’t think we have much room to complain if it doesn’t.

    This is a good post. The sites don’t owe anything to the players, affiliates, etc. They can and will do whatever they can to further their own best interests.

    However, there is a balance that must be struck. There are people that drive significant amounts of rake that will stop playing if it’s not worth the effort to keep doing so. It’s impossible to know exactly where that level is, but it exists.

    Another risk is that of perception. I think the DFS sites would be walking a very fine line in publicly talking about how their games is skillful and different from other forms of betting, but they in fact have calibrated the rake such that only a very small amount of players can win. It’s not to say that they would be breaking laws, it’s just that it’s ripe for a perception problem when it starts being reported by the media. This perception problem would not be good and could lead to other actual problems.

    So in sum, I think it’s important for the DFS sites to create an ecosystem that actually allows a meaningful amount of players to win. I’m not saying the current setup isn’t appropriate (I really don’t know), but given rake continues to go up and the amount of new and inexperienced players tapers off (could be years into the future, but it will happen), I could see this being an issue in the near future.

  • louiescards

    DK KoTH winner

    It’s pretty refreshing to see a solid conversation on a pretty serious topic from all sides. In the end I still believe a good majority of people will continue to pay whatever the rake is b/c they do not even think about it at all (literally never crosses their mind). So eliminating yourself from a high rake Q or tournament sounds like the most impactful thing you could do, but in reality they will fill that tournament regardless. If you still think you can personally beat that rake then why not play? That doesn’t mean it is best for the community as a whole.

  • dan72

    @einars said...

    and then once they have the customer base the jack the rate up as high as demand will sustain. you are not operating an efficient business until your cost to consumer is as high as the customer will sustain. only reason to offer below market cost is to obtain a customer base

    Fair point. But if you are a moderately high stakes grinder playing $1 million a year wouldnt you move all of your business to a site that has 2% less rake if they could give you enough “action”. Thats a free $20K a year.

    ESPN/Yahoo/CBS should came into the market offering 7 to 7.5% rake but no referral fees, rakebacks (do they exist in DFS), etc… That would still be pretty close to what the sites are getting now from a player who is referred.

    Of course these sites could also do the same. Just stop giving referral fees and reduce rake by the amount they save off that. The problem is it would decimate a lot of their business partners (like RG) so they won’t do that. Which is why CBS/ESPN/YAHOO should come into the game with less rake no referral fees.

  • SteveAvery

    @pmsimkins said...

    It drives me nuts when people do what you’re doing here.

    (He’s a great wonderful guy, but now I’m going say something rotten about him now.)

    (Don’t take this the wrong way, but…..)

    (Nothing personal, but…..)

    If you’re gonna say something about someone’s integrity just say it.

    I think I can disagree with someone and still respect them as a person.

    If you’re referring to the post I made about high-volume players being influenced by sites through tickets, parties, etc., this wasn’t directed specifically at AlSmizzle.

    It was a general observation directed at all people that fit this category. I don’t claim to know the extent that each person is influenced and how it affects all of their individual stances. I do claim that it does have some impact however.

  • yaleg34

    @pmsimkins said...

    It drives me nuts when people do what you’re doing here.

    (He’s a great wonderful guy, but now I’m going say something rotten about him now.)

    (Don’t take this the wrong way, but…..)

    (Nothing personal, but…..)

    If you’re gonna say something about someone’s integrity just say it.

    Ummm i am saying it to his face. His existence as a dfs brand is more profitable than his existence as a player.

    It doesnt make him a bad guy or a cheater or anything like that. It simply means the things which effect his bottom line and ability to earn money, which is undoubtedly his goal is vastly different than everyone in the industry outside of about 10 people.

    Cal has been smart enough to position himself as the leading affliate in the industry, it doesnt make him a bad guy, it makes him smart, a first mover, a visionary, whose goals are vastly different than the majority of the community.

    That isnt a bad thing, its just a fact

  • einars

    @yaleg34 said...

    vastly growing but unbeatable game

    i think you would find that a unbeatable game would not be vastly growing. my point was, the more people playing = more $$ for RG and other affiliates. Therefore, cal and Al are more vested in the growth of the industry than most

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 389

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @yaleg34 said...

    Posts by steveavery and lovesbases are the ones to focus in on that are logical and relevant to the real issues at hand.

    Cal and al smizzle have way too many alterior motives that effect the food which is put on the table for their familys to be objective. Cal and smizzle are net winners when the industry gets bigger regardless of profitability for the player, this is why they are engaged on the side of business which they presently have positioned themselves (cal=massive affiliate) and smizzle=sponsored pro, lololol and radio personality/industry ambassador and all around good guy. Even though i lol at sponsored pro i honestly believe smizzle is a good guy and great ambassador for the industry, he is nice, respectufl, and thoughtful without being antagonistic (cant say the same for myself).

    Basically the alterior motives of these 2 and a select few others greatly differ from the rest of the community seeking to play a game that can remain profitable after fees. Sure, they dont mind a profitable low rake game, but where they are presently positioned it doesnt matter nearly as much to them as it does to the majority of this community

    What am I saying in this thread that you disagree with? I’m not defending rake increases. Most of my posts have centered on the OP incorrectly saying sites are proven to be profitable.

    I’ve also posted that at some point excessive rake becomes an overall negative to the ecology.

    I think SteveAvery’s last post makes a lot of good points – the potential harm that he speaks of, lack of profitability causing a subset of serious players to stop playing, can also be harmful to RG. We cater to those types of players. We are actively building tools and trackers for those types of players. These are the types of players that will pay for subscriptions and make for a thriving third party industry.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @SteveAvery said...

    I think I can disagree with someone and still respect them as a person.

    If you’re referring to the post I made about high-volume players being influenced by sites through tickets, parties, etc., this wasn’t directed specifically at AlSmizzle.

    It was a general observation directed at all people that fit this category. I don’t claim to know the extent that each person is influenced and how it affects all of their individual stances. I do claim that it does have some impact however.

    I didn’t quote your post. I’m not saying I disagree or have any opinion or personal knowledge of those guys. We all bring our personal biases to a discussion.

    That being said, a rational intelligent person can easily disagree with you on this without having an ulterior motive. Lots of those people have already posted.

    You want to do something about the rake then do something. I have no issue with that. I hope you’re successful. If you want something done you ought to start with yourself though. You can’t sit and pump multilineup into 13% rake contests everyday because you’re profitable and then come on here and complain we all need to do something about this. If we’re going to talk disingenuous and ulterior motives I think you’re throwing stones in a glass house.

  • dan72

    Which is one of my points. THe money isnt in being a consistently winning player (too hard). Its in having people think you ARE a consistently winning player and therefore if they listen to your advice you can be one too. Then you get paid either from the player or from the site (referral fee).

  • yaleg34

    @einars said...

    i think you would find that a unbeatable game would not be vastly growing. my point was, the more people playing = more $$ for RG and other affiliates. Therefore, cal and Al are more vested in the growth of the industry than most

    And you are correct about more people playing=more for RG and other affiliates.

    Your other point i completely disagree with.

    Do vegas table game revenues fluctuate, of course they do.

    Do more people play lottery when it gets to 500M jackpot than at 20M of course they do.

    Neither are beatable, in both instances people play. I do not proclaim to have vegas table games revenue handy, but i assure you their have been growth points.

    I also know that a nearly unbeatable game called sports betting, which less than 1 pct of all people beat is a growing business.

    Marketing,disposable income and state of economy are going to have a very large effect on growth.

    In alll aspects of gambling not everyone has the same motivations, its an lol idea that everyone plays DFS,poker or sports bet only to make money, this is simply not the case. Thus whether a game is beatable or not doesnt necessarily have an effect on growth

  • gibby84

    @einars said...

    i think you would find that a unbeatable game would not be vastly growing. my point was, the more people playing = more $$ for RG and other affiliates. Therefore, cal and Al are more vested in the growth of the industry than most

    As more folks play, there will be more of an impetus for easily digestable information. That equates to less edge and more trading of rake between players due to less player profitability. More players + less overall player profitability = most money for dfs sites and affiliates.

    Dfs will go the way of the gold rush in time. Those that got rich sold supplies. Nothing wrong with that and hats off to the affiliates like rg that were smart enough to get in and position themselves early.

  • SteveAvery

    @pmsimkins said...

    I didn’t quote your post. I’m not saying I diagree or have any opinion or personal knowledge of those guys. We all bring our personal biases to a discussion.

    That being said, a rational intelligent person can easily disagree with you on this without having an alterior motive. Lots of those people have already posted.

    I agree with you 100%. I don’t claim to be this omniscient person that can predict the future of everything. I don’t even claim to be right about everything I say. If you were to lay odds on every statement I make as being false, there are a number of them I’d take the odds on.

    I try to think logically about issues and make statements/assumptions based on that logic. I believe them to be true based on what I know but by no means does that mean they have to be true. And as a consequence, people that are disagreeing with me can certainly be right and/or have valid points.

  • dan72

    Let me ask a question. How is the rake more than twice as much for DFS then it is for sports betting?

    Is it that much more expensive to operate a DFS site then a sports betting site? Also consider the fact that the revenue in DFS is guaranteed (assuming no overlay) while sports betting sites can have negative revenue if they are on the wrong side of the public.

    Lots of different ways to answer this …

  • yaleg34

    @SteveAvery said...

    I agree with you 100%. I don’t claim to be this omniscient person that can predict the future of everything. I don’t even claim to be right about everything I say. If you were to lay odds on every statement I make as being false, there are a number of them I’d take the odds on.

    I try to think logically about issues and make statements/assumptions based on that logic. I believe them to be true based on what I know but by no means does that mean they have to be true. And as a consequence, people that are disagreeing with me can certainly be right and/or have valid points.

    Steveavery=stone nuts of posting on this site.

  • louiescards

    DK KoTH winner

    @yaleg34 said...

    Steveavery=stone nuts of posting on this site.

    I almost added Stone Nuts as his under title.

  • yaleg34

    Would get my seal of approval

  • whits23

    2010 FFFC Finalist, 2010 DFBC Finalist, 2011 FFFC Finalist, 2014 DSBC Finalist

    • x2

      2010 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    • 2011 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @sethayates said...

    You know what I have always found strange about these rake threads? Some of the very same people saying “vote with your dollar” are also the ones running massive trains in the highest rake double ups. When NBA starts back up, take a look at any of the multi-entry double ups. They are raked around 15%, yet high rollers are are running max entries? Why is that? Well, quite simply it’s because the high rollers feel like they have an edge and want to maximize that edge.

    Why wouldn’t these high rollers take their action to a smaller site with lower rake? Two reasons. The first is that they need the volume FD and DK offer. The second is they want to play against “fish”. Where do the fish come from? They come from the commercials that the sites are running. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to play at a site because of the volume it offers, but then complain about the rake used to pay the advertising that created that volume.

    Seth..they want the sites to help them cause they cant help themselves LOL…put the donuts down fatso

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler (NJ/WV/PA), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO) or 1-800-BETS OFF (IA). 21+. NJ/PA/WV/IN/IA/CO/IL only.